Booze now considered a weapon in rape cases

originally posted by: stumason
You're making the assumption there that the rape took place in the first place, see the problem? If you're drunk, consent to sex but then
either regret it or don't remember the next morning, you should still be legally liable for the decisions made while drunk.

I said IF you are raped. I made no presumption and also said there's the possibility that anyone can make a claim of something not being true with
any accusation, it's not limited to rape. If a woman decides it was a mistake the next morning I don't think it's fair for her to claim it was
rape, but unless the person were disturbed I don't think they normally would. I don't think it's something a normal person does for the fun of
it.

originally posted by: stumason
But far too often, the women is given the benefit of the doubt and without having to prove she didn't consent - even without any physical evidence of
said "rape" - while the man has to prove he obtained consent.

Maybe in the court of public opinion, but I'm not sure how any good defense lawyer could not make a pretty decent case when there is no physical
evidence. I'm willing to be there are far more rapists out on the streets that were never convicted than there are innocent men in jail falsely
accused.

originally posted by: stumason
Take the furore surrounding Ched Evans in the UK. A footballer who picked up a girl on a night
out, she went willingly back to the hotel room with him, had sex with him, but then the next morning claimed she was raped because she was
"too drunk" to have given consent.

There are no facts in dispute and according to the law it was rape. If she did this in order to get money or some other nefarious end then she's not
a victim, but he still committed a crime. It would be awful hard to prove that she set him up. I'm always suspicious when a high profile person is
accused of rape for that very reason.

The law is you can't consent to sex when you're intoxicated. Based on your source article she was very intoxicated. If you take home drunk people
and have sex with them you are running the risk of being convicted of rape.

originally posted by: stumason
Because it is such a miscarriage of justice! The stigma associated with being labelled a rapist is far worse than being called a murderer.

It is a miscarriage of justice if somebody is falsely accused. The problem is people seem to think that claiming rape is something that you just do
when you made a bad decision and that's not the case for a normal person. This is a very good reason to not go home with drunk people at bars or
parties which it seems is overwhelmingly where this is happening.

originally posted by: IShotMyLastMuse
a reply to: stumason
I don't get it, for all this talk about equality, we are forcing men and women into these bubbles of isolation
and sorry to sound cynical, but as someone already pointed out, if you, as a guy, had sex with a woman while drunk and accused her of raping you,
people will laugh it off, because it has been decided that it's impossible for a woman to rape a man, you recounted your experience in the work place
and how it was dismissed.

originally posted by: Ksihkehe
I said IF you are raped. I made no presumption and also said there's the possibility that anyone can make a claim of something not being true with
any accusation, it's not limited to rape. If a woman decides it was a mistake the next morning I don't think it's fair for her to claim it was
rape, but unless the person were disturbed I don't think they normally would. I don't think it's something a normal person does for the fun of
it.

Fair enough about the first point, but that was what I was trying to highlight. Essentially, as the law stands, if a woman is drunk she cannot give
consent, so you're fine if she doesn't regret it, but if the next morning she changes her mind, there is very little you can do to defend yourself
unless you had the good sense to film it.

You do seem to be unaware of how many rapes are false allegations (something on the rise) and that makes me wonder just how many of these alleged
rapes was an actual rape and not a case of the "morning after".

originally posted by: Ksihkehe
Maybe in the court of public opinion, but I'm not sure how any good defense lawyer could not make a pretty decent case when there is no physical
evidence.

Ched Evans is a good example of exactly that. This is the story:

Woman goes with another player back to hotel room - she is seen staggering with the bloke in the hall before going into the room with him

Ched Evans joins later

Evans watches his mate shag the lady concerned, then after that he joins in.

The next morning, she regrets what she did and goes to the Police.

Evans friend is found not guilty, but he is on the grounds that the woman - and this is the words of the Judge - "could not have consented as she
was 2 1/2 times the legal drive limit". But she was deemed ok to have consented to the other bloke, during the same sex session....

Essentially, she was embarrassed about being in a gang bang. The law has decided that the first bloke had, somehow, got consent from this drunk woman
but the second bloke hadn't? How can that be possible? If she was too drunk to have consented to one, she was surely too drunk to have consented to
the other?

originally posted by: Ksihkehe
I'm willing to be there are far more rapists out on the streets that were never convicted than there are innocent men in jail falsely accused.

And? One being in jail for something they didn't commit is bad enough, but you seem to be happy with the idea that putting innocent men in jail is ok
as long as we catch the real ones too? Drag netting, much?

originally posted by: Ksihkehe
There are no facts in dispute and according to the law it was rape.

Actually, the case is being reviewed for a possible miscarriage. See above.

originally posted by: Ksihkehe
If she did this in order to get money or some other nefarious end then she's not a victim, but he still committed a crime.

How so?

originally posted by: Ksihkehe
It would be awful hard to prove that she set him up. I'm always suspicious when a high profile person is accused of rape for that very reason.

There were witnesses in the room that said he didn't rape her! One of the men who had sex with her was found not guilty, but Ched Evans was! You seem
quite naive about this whole topic, really.

originally posted by: Ksihkehe
The law is you can't consent to sex when you're intoxicated. Based on your source article she was very intoxicated. If you take home drunk people
and have sex with them you are running the risk of being convicted of rape.

Which is utter bollocks. The law says you are still legally liable for your actions even when intoxicated, so why is there a special exemption for
sex?

And how can one bloke in the room be found not guilty of rape and the other was based on the fact she was "drunk" and not capable of consent? She
either can consent, or she cannot.

originally posted by: Ksihkehe
It is a miscarriage of justice if somebody is falsely accused. The problem is people seem to think that claiming rape is something that you just do
when you made a bad decision and that's not the case for a normal person. This is a very good reason to not go home with drunk people at bars or
parties which it seems is overwhelmingly where this is happening.

And it still isn't rape. Taking someone back to your house/hotel and having sex with them, without any coercion or force, is not "rape" simply
because they may be drunk. Being drunk does not abrogate you from your legal responsibilities. If I was drunk and stamped someone's head in, I'd be
convicted of assault regardless, so why is it a special exemption that if you are drunk and have sex you later regret, you are "raped" and "unable
to give consent".

I'm sorry to hear about that, and i get it, we just take the precautions we feel we need to take to avoid a repeat of a traumatic experience, and
sometimes we just end up building a wall around ourselves.
I know the world is a scary place and not everyone out there is a friend, but like i said, i hate this idea that we will be looking at each other as a
default menace, that something as natural and fun as flirting will need eye witnesses and lawyers.
And while yes, men do take advantage of women that are in a drunk state, isn't it a bit condescending to put you ladies in a position of constant
victim hood?
Doesn't this all seem to say "women are not capable of taking care of themselves a single bit"?

It does. It doesn't help, I don't think when you have some guys who do drug drinks, so women are not constantly on the guard for their drinks being
drugged for fear that they are next. That's not to say that women don't do it too! It's rare but it does occur and I'll admit it.

of course. men aren't the only culprits here--although they do appear to make up the majority. However, considering so many cases are unreported, a
true figure remains unknown. But yeah, it's good you bring up this point.

The Law is supposed to protect those accused falsely as much as those who have been wronged.

But as you said, there is a presumption that, in a case where two drunk people have sex and the women the regrets it and calls it "rape" that the
man is the offending party and it is he who must provide evidence of consent. Also, in any other situation like that were it is simply one persons
word against another, lacking any other evidence of the alleged offence, the case is likely to not even get to court, much less result in anyone being
convicted.

“an act of sexual penetration to which a person has given consent because the actor has misrepresented the purpose of the act or has represented he
is someone he is not.”

In terms of legally precise language, I am struck by the absence of gender neutral pronouns.

This all may be a moot point in the near future. If the police state, social engineers and compulsory medical crowd proceed as they appear to be, we
can expect chemical castration to be the most widely recommended treatment for YMS (Young Male Syndrome).

You can get a bar into big trouble if they over serve you alcohol and you drive home. That's why good servers or bar tenders know to ask if you are
driving if you have like 6+ pints of beer or something.
But you yourself still get into big trouble as well.

I guess it's sort of the same logic.
But it shouldn't be a weapon, or a motive in the court. If a girl or guy gets drunk, becomes a little more open and flirts with someone then goes
home and has sex with them. How is that rape?

With that logic. "I'm sorry officer I didn't know that if I drove to the bar I couldn't drive home after drinking", right.
When people go to the bar sober, they have intentions, it might be to just have fun, to drink your face off, maybe watch the game, hook up with
someone. People go to bars for reasons, not 'just because'. And alcohol enhances your mood, hence the name liquid courage, and the saying drunk
words are sober thoughts, it makes you make decisions that you normally would never do while sober. Such as hooking up with someone.

Male cow feces. The definition of what constitutes "sexual assault" has been broadened to the point of absurdity.
The feminist movement is trying to make it a crime just to be a man. If I look at an attractive woman at work, look not leer, there is a difference,
and she doesn't like it I can be accused of sexual harassment or assault.

This is the reasoning behind these policies. Absurd as it sounds to a thinking person, the masses don't seem to have a problem with these trends.

Universities across America are instituting asinine rules to protect women from men. In California, a proposed bill would require male students to
obtain written consent from a female before any sexual activity on campus. The bill allows for written or verbal consent, but the latter is no
protection unless the guy has video/audio evidence.

After the fraudulent and fictitious gang-rape story printed in Rolling Stone recently, the University of Virgnia enacted a series of ridiculous
restrictions. Sororities at UVa are now effectively banned from attending events alongside fraternities. The university president refused to roll back
any of these policies even after the magazine article was proved to be completely fabricated.

Pursuit of romance is becoming such a legal obstacle course, it's no wonder a significant portion of the male populace have now abandoned aspirations
or love or marriage, describing themselves as MGTOW (men going their own way).

The conspiracy theorist in me wonders...is this all an attempt to limit population growth? Is it a yet another wedge being driven between the people,
so as to make us all easier to control?
Or is it just another example of moronic leftist ideology with unintended consequences?

originally posted by: stumason
Essentially, as the law stands, if a woman is drunk she cannot give consent, so you're fine if she doesn't regret it, but if the next morning she
changes her mind, there is very little you can do to defend yourself unless you had the good sense to film it.
You do seem to be unaware of how many rapes are false allegations (something on the rise) and that makes me wonder just how many of these alleged
rapes was an actual rape and not a case of the "morning after".

The good sense to film it can get you in trouble too if you don't have consent for filming. A fact sheet on rape
www.stsm.org... says that rape is the same as other falsely reported crimes. It comes in at
%2.

originally posted by: stumason
Ched Evans is a good example of exactly that. This is the story:

Essentially, she was embarrassed about being in a gang bang. The law has decided that the first bloke had, somehow, got consent from this drunk woman
but the second bloke hadn't? How can that be possible? If she was too drunk to have consented to one, she was surely too drunk to have consented to
the other?

You're leaving a bit of the story out based on your own source article www.bbc.com... the bolds are added for emphasis.

The court heard McDonald met the woman and took her back to a hotel room near Rhyl, Denbighshire, sending a text to Evans stating he had "got a
bird" or words to that effect. The jury heard that Evans had gone to the hotel, let himself in to McDonald's room and watched his friend and
the woman having sex before taking part himself. The prosecution claimed that while the attack happened, friends of the footballer watched through
a window. The men admitted having sex with the woman on 30 May 2011, but said it was consensual
In sentencing Evans, the judge said: "CCTV footage shows, in my view, the extent of her intoxication when she stumbled into your friend. As the jury
have found, she was in no condition to have sexual intercourse"

So he lets himself into the room meanwhile his friends are watching from outside. See this story starts to make more sense when you add that in. Very
easy solution is not to enter your friends room and have sex with a drunk person while your friends watch from outside. You honestly don't see
something wrong with this? There's also the way alcohol works in the body, it's not immediate. She could have been half-conscious by the time he
"joined in" from prior consumption. I don't know. I'm just offering a possible explanation.

I don't know anything about the friends case as it wasn't covered. I'm guessing it wasn't tried as one case.

originally posted by: stumason
And? One being in jail for something they didn't commit is bad enough, but you seem to be happy with the idea that putting innocent men in jail is ok
as long as we catch the real ones too? Drag netting, much?

I never said I was happy about it nor did I make any kind of suggestion that any innocent persons life is worth catching the guilty. What I said was
meant to frame this in a bigger picture. For some reason it seems people are so concerned with a false allegation of rape, but in the discussion
actual rape gets ignored. There have been massive cover-ups of sexual assault by US colleges and universities.

originally posted by: stumason
Actually, the case is being reviewed for a possible miscarriage. See above.

originally posted by: Ksihkehe
If she did this in order to get money or some other nefarious end then she's not a victim, but he still committed a crime.

How so?

Because as the law stands you cannot give consent when intoxicated. I'm not a lawyer so I really can't speak to the liabilities she would face.
Conspiracy to commit fraud? I have no idea.

originally posted by: stumason
There were witnesses in the room that said he didn't rape her! One of the men who had sex with her was found not guilty, but Ched Evans was! You seem
quite naive about this whole topic, really.

There was one witness in the room according to your article and friends outside watching. I'm just basing this on the article. I don't know why I
seem naive about the whole topic. I guess it doesn't help your rape case when you have to have people watching through a window testify. It seems
obvious to me that the friend was setting this woman up and texted his friends to let them know to come watch. It sounds like all involved put
themselves in a risky situation.

I already said I'm suspicious when a high profile person is accused because they are easy targets.

originally posted by: stumason
Which is utter bollocks. The law says you are still legally liable for your actions even when intoxicated, so why is there a special exemption for
sex?
And how can one bloke in the room be found not guilty of rape and the other was based on the fact she was "drunk" and not capable of consent? She
either can consent, or she cannot.

Not just for sex. It's the same with signing a contract. Legally if the person is impaired enough not to have the mental capacity to enter it the
contract can be rendered invalid. I'm not a lawyer so this is just my understanding.

I don't know how one person is guilty and the other isn't. I'm guessing they were two different court cases. Also as I said before intoxication
could have peaked after the drinking. I don't know because I did not follow the case. I have no idea and you would have to find the answers in the
court documents.

originally posted by: stumason
And it still isn't rape. Taking someone back to your house/hotel and having sex with them, without any coercion or force, is not "rape" simply
because they may be drunk. Being drunk does not abrogate you from your legal responsibilities. If I was drunk and stamped someone's head in, I'd be
convicted of assault regardless, so why is it a special exemption that if you are drunk and have sex you later regret, you are "raped" and "unable
to give consent".

If a person is too drunk to legally consent then they law states otherwise. It's not a law that assumes people are going to falsely report it or take
advantage of the system. That's not how laws are written. Stomping in a persons head is a crime and you cannot use intoxication as a defense. As I
said in the case of contracts the mental capacity must exist for it to be legal. If a crime is falsely reported being drunk is not a defense to
having committed it.

The bottom line is I disagree with the law proposed. Classifying alcohol as a weapon is dumb. We agree on that. I really don't think manhood is under
assault. The simple solution is not to pick up drunk people to screw. The main stream media can sensationalize the minority of cases where there is a
false accusation, but considering the estimates on how many sexual assaults there are versus how many get reported I think that's a much bigger
problem.

It is an inevitability that any movement, however righteous it may be to start, will be taken too far by its most fanatic supporters. Feminism has
long since passed the middle ground. Modern feminists are by-and-large fighting for supremacy, not equality.

Obama interrupted the Grammy awards to give a BS PSA about the threat women everywhere face in the form of predatory men. He said "Right now 1 in 4
women in America have been the victim of rape or attempted rape."
An unbelievably high number, until you understand that 'attempted rape' encompasses a broad range of actions, including attempted forced
kissing. So every time a guy tries to steal a kiss, or misreads a woman's desires, he is attempting rape.

It is an inevitability that any movement, however righteous it may be to start, will be taken too far by its most fanatic supporters. Feminism has
long since passed the middle ground. Modern feminists are by-and-large fighting for supremacy, not equality.

Obama interrupted the Grammy awards to give a BS PSA about the threat women everywhere face in the form of predatory men. He said "Right now 1 in 4
women in America have been the victim of rape or attempted rape."
An unbelievably high number, until you understand that 'attempted rape' encompasses a broad range of actions, including attempted forced
kissing. So every time a guy tries to steal a kiss, or misreads a woman's desires, he is attempting rape.

This is why you should have a portable printer and have legal contracts on your smart phone ready to go. Also, don't go to a bar/pub/party without a
friend that's a public notary. Have you and the woman both sign the paperwork that states consent, STD status and all that jazz. Then, have your
friend notarize it. You could even take the document to your county clerks office and place it on public record too.

Oh, and portable breathalyzers are getting pretty good these days. They have very reliable ones for about $120 that you send in yearly for
calibration. You could document your BAC as well as the woman's on your document that both parties sign.

The law regarding consent is quite clear. In order for a person to consent to anything they must have all the information available about what they
are consenting to (know what they are saying yes to), and have the mental capacity to make this consent.

No one can consent on behalf of another person unless legally eligible, and the consent must be voluntary.

The consent can be withdrawn at any time.

Do any of you think that a person who is blind drunk has the mental capacity to meet the above requirements?

I would suggest that having sex with a person who is very drunk is carrying out a non-consensual act as the person involved does not have the legal
capacity to consent. Whether the person made themselves incapable of consent is irrelevant, they are still incapable. They may have even gone out with
a view to being spit roasted by a gang of blokes, but the fact that she got so drunk as to be incapable of withdrawing that consent makes her a
vulnerable person.

She may be saying yes, but she isn't legally capable of doing so in the same way as a child or mentally disabled person may agree but is not legally
capable.

However that doesn't mean that every drunk woman doesn't want sex. We all know that is complete crap. Many people have a few shandys to drop the
inhibitions a bit so they are more comfortable meeting new people and some actually enjoy getting drunk and pulling guys.

It's a complete minefield out there gents.

That being said if I relied on every sexual encounter I've ever had being sober I'd probably still be a virgin...

I feel like if you've hooked an unlucky fish where you got drunk with her, slept with her, then she later regretted it and is trying to push rape
charges on you, you are already in a pretty dire situation regardless if you have a weapons charge tacked on or not. Like the possibility of being
labeled a sexual predator for the rest of your life.

Above post asked the question before I could, but it's worth repeating.

What if the guy is drunk, too?

What if he's three times as inebriated, and he goes home with Fatty McBatty, and she decides the next morning that she should not have made the
decision to have sex with him?
I guess we flip a coin, then?

The answer to all this BS is quite simple: personal responsibility. I know it's in short supply these days, but come on...

If a person chooses to drink too much, they are also choosing to accept responsibility for any and all foolish decisions they make while under the
influence.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.